The Political Economy of Oil Transportation and the Implications for Canada
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Canada, there are currently multiple oil pipeline projects being proposed, engaged in the regulatory process, or recently approved with conditions. While debates have focused on the environmental effects or environmental injustices of these projects, there is a lack of analysis on the overall political economy of oil transportation infrastructure and how interests and power relationships shape these debates. The importance of understanding the political economy of oil transportation is that pipeline projects have various implications for the future of Canada in terms of sustainability, Canada's energy path, and environmental consequences to be felt by future generations. To address the shortage of analysis, this paper provides a modified institutional-ideological framework applied to a case study of the Energy East Pipeline project to explore the current political economy of oil transportation in Canada. The framework comprises of four categories: material, physical, and economic factors; normative factors; institutional factors; and interests and societal factors. The analysis provides two tentative conclusions suggesting the future implications for Canada if the country continues down its current resource-based development path. The first is to call for a national energy policy involving a democratic opportunity to debate the available energy development options, and the second is to draw attention to the opportunities for resistance of the current direction of natural resource development in Canada. A choice is to be made regarding which path Canada will choose, with pipeline decisions being an important aspect of this choice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.022 | 0.011 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.014 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.016 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".